The problem
The appalling decline of British wilderness and British wildlife in the 20th Century is manifest. A few success stories, where endangered animals or plants have been rescued from the edge of extinction, should not blind us to the critical situation. More than half of British hedgerows, with their associated animals and plants, have been lost in just fifty years. The disappearance of so many village and farm ponds is a grievous loss. It becomes more and more difficult to find and experience the remaining wilderness.
What has been done .
Measures have been taken to control the decline in wilderness and wildlife. Planning legislation, though often inadequate, has set some control over urban expansion. Scientific studies of the interrelationships between animals, plants and their physical environment, have pointed the way towards useful legislation. The establishment of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), with special rules governing them, and the imposition of legal restrictions on the collection of wild animals and plants, have had some effect. There have been huge shifts in public attitudes, so proposals for roads or building developments which threaten wildlife, are likely to encounter formidable, and sometimes successful, resistance. There is growing pressure for control over modern techniques which threaten wilderness, such as the widespread use of certain pesticides and fertilisers.
What has not been done.
Yet all these development together have done no more than slow the decline of wilderness and wildlife: they have certainly failed to reverse it. One powerful device in the armoury of the conservationist has been largely ignored: the economic weapon. A great deal can be done to ensure that wilderness is preserved, and even extended, by making it profitable for people to act in ways which preserve wilderness, and unprofitable for them to act in ways which destroy it. One highly relevant policy is known as Land Value Taxation (LVT). Yet, at first sight, it seems to have nothing to do with the preservation of wilderness! LVT is not the only policy required to preserve our wilderness, but it would be a vital addition to other "green" policies.
What is Land Value Taxation?
It collects for government funding the annual value that accrues to land, while phasing out taxes on production. LVT requires that the basic, 'undeveloped' value of all land should first be assessed. 'Undeveloped' value means the value of a site itself, excluding all additions such as buildings, machinery, drainage, crops, or other 'improvements' which have been put upon the site. 'Undeveloped' land values vary enormously, depending on the location of a site: central city land may be worth thousands or even millions of times as much as marginal land. Planning restrictions also have a dramatic effect on land values. These differences would be recognised in the valuation. As the value of a site can change over time, revaluations would be necessary at regular intervals.
With the assessment complete, an annual tax would be imposed, based on the valuation. Starting at a moderate percentage, the tax should be increased until eventually almost the whole of the annual site value is collected through L VT. Since this would produce an enormous revenue, existing taxes, such as income tax and V AT, could be drastically reduced and perhaps eventually eliminated.
LVT and wilderness.
How would LVT preserve wilderness and wildlife? One of the many absurdities of contemporary land use is that, while there is great pressure from developers to encroach on what remains of our wilde11less, there is a great deal of land (particularly in towns), underdeveloped or even completely derelict, which could be developed without exciting protest from conservationists. This, of course, does not include land such as parks, preserved for recreation. If the land now scarred by 'inner city decay' were redeveloped, the pressure for building on green-field land would be greatly reduced.
Why is this urban land held unused or under used? 'As an investment' is the common euphemism - for land speculation. The owner has few expenses while his site stands idle. He anticipates that it will increase in value.
Suppose, however, that L VT were in operation. The holder of this idle but valuable inner-city land would be required to pay, and to go on paying, a tax commensurate with its possibilities. He would be compelled either to develop the land himself or relinquish it to someone who would. As a consequence, more inner-city land would become available; the pressure to build on wilde11less areas and green-field sites would ease.
Another kind of unused or under-used, land is held in 'land banks'. Builders or developers prepare, not just for immediate construction but for construction far in the future. They fear that they may not be able to afford the necessary land when the time comes. So they acquire land which they have no present intention of developing (often in places where building is actually forbidden by planning regulations) in the hope that those regulations will one day be relaxed.
These 'land banks' are often held completely out of use. If it happens to have conservation importance (e.g., as an SSI) a land bank may be deliberately left unmanaged in the hope that deterioration will obliterate the conversation value and the planning authorities will then allow development to proceed.
But if 'land banks' were subjected to a relevant L VT, owners could not afford to keep them idle in this way. They would be put to a viable use until redevelopment became feasible.
One of the great changes of the last half-century has been the rapid disappearance of the small farmer. Traditionally he manages his land in a 'nature-friendly' way. His fields are likely to be small, and sun"ounded by hedgero\vs. He is likely to have one or two ponds for his animals. He is likely to have a 'mixed' farm, producing pigs, poultry, market vegetables, perhaps coppiced woodland products. This leads to varied wildlife on small farms, and a surprising amount of wilde11less.
Is the small farmer disappearing because he is "uneconomic"? It has been shown that he can usually produce a higher yield per acre than a large farmer working similar land. It is surely paradoxical that the small farms are nevertheless giving way to large farms, with great fields of monoculture crops, heavily laced with artificial fertilisers and pesticides. This is partly because the small farmer is often a tenant, so that, as well as bearing a burden of taxation he must also pay: a rack rent to the land-owner.
If LVT replaced current taxation, the economic balance in farming would shift. All owners of land would be required to pay the new tax. Where the farmer is a tenant, LVT would work strongly in his favour because it would be the landowner who would pay the LVT while the other taxes which the tenant pays today would be reduced.
Where the farmer, whether large or small is also the owner, although he would pay LVT, he too would enjoy relief from other crippling taxes.
There are many other reasons for supporting LVT, as well as its value in preserving wildlife. These are discussed in other Topic Papers in this series. |
|
